December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NYC C'PUNKS MEETING
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, If you live in the NYC area or will be visiting this coming weekend, you are invited to a Cypherpunks get-together. We will be meeting at Linn & Barbara Stanton's apartment on Saturday from noon till whenever. The Stanton's live at 315 W. 106th, Apt. 2A in Manhattan. This is between West End and Riverside. The nearest subway station is on the 1 and 9 lines at 103rd. If you need better directions, call them at (212) 316-1958. We will actually start at noon, so plan to arrive sometime before that hour. Everyone should eat first or bring some snacks with you. Later, if attendees want, we can have food delivered or go out for dinner afterwards. Though I will attempt to hold court, I expect it will be every bit as anarchistic as the Bay Area meetings. Anyone wishing to depose me, is welcome to do so. If someone has something for the "agenda," let me know when you RSVP. Or don't. If you are sure, kinda sure, or think maybe you will attend Saturday, please e-mail me at this address. (If your message bounces, try ssandfort(a)attmail.com) Give me your best guess on the likelihood of your showing; I'd like to have a reasonably accurate estimate of how many we will have. Please feel free to bring anyone you think might be interested/interesting. If possible, let me know that too. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 3

Nom de guerre public key
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm new at both remailing and PGP, but having read the Cyphernomicon (OK, skimmed it) and various other FAQs, I haven't seen this issue addressed: I've created a pseudonym and a PGP key pair for that pseudonym. Now, how do I secure signatures for my public key, given the fact that (a) to sign it, you should be sure that it really belongs to me, and (b) I have no intention of revealing who "me" actually is? You can't call me on the phone, or meet me face to face, or do any of those other standard practices for confirming the key before signing it. But I sure don't want to use an unsigned, untrusted public key, since I want to make and keep a reputation and I can't risk someone spoofing my public key. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My public key: - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCPAy51e6kAAAEEAMLIkYRAJqKnrQL7Xxmu7hNycUU06YZuR2i3WVxN9Jc6vnoF i7gT6/u7zVI4gmZCTA6mF6SYEFeOiENHaz0wyBNe+8AOIgdaezUsPODMh7UC64k0 YVQTNOiPN9jQAnyCGjPrplSliWT4gHGC796whwJ8CFkwPdpQf6vOblMnt4MdABEB AAG0DENyaW0gVGlkZXNvbg== =pwyo - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLo3MxqvOblMnt4MdAQH0jwQAvzbd7b7KpcKdaeGzWUx8aav4WxWJWD9W qwYaVF/WNFFg89+m0K8TztTEcc9QVz3wYvKz1ojOx7IOJl10ZUBXbXrChaDYhbKJ YTU3QeOHN7o8VdzJ3o7z6lK9QqLZhhzQd4VgF9VxR++8LcBVS8AYaVWsfGLv7L2q W+4h4FIR0GE= =Vu2X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 9

No Subject
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a > "Cypherpunk victory." > > 1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^ I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are marked by their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices). We agree about crypto, but not all tech is crypto. :) ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpCIPqvOblMnt4MdAQEgRgP/XNNQ/T/RvLnd7Rhu8OxCNlXhez8Dqt0h mJfJ172h8QZr0TSr9jxOt6720Z5+lKGZJbP62I5OZEeufifwTXn1Q9Il1Sq4BEWA mUFbs1mu/v88xVReuNXie5e09R7cRa4cZ8W0aGQ2+ceCBTEvJ/z8Cqps93ZucL9j ZDtO93NM78k= =FcUP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

NYC C'PUNKS PHOTO SESSION
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Herbie wrote thusly about the upcoming NYC C'punks meeting: how do we know this isn't an NSA attempt to get us to show our faces so they can get our photos? Photos? We *already* have your photo, Herbie. It's *you* we want now. Do not struggle; resistance is futile. Report to the "meeting" for final processing. (B.Y.O.B.) S a n d y Official NSA agent provocateur ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Quick, somebody mention Hitler
by Lewis McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently the Cypherpunks list received ------------------------------------------ From: jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 17:46:19 -0700 (PDT) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My apologies to everyone for starting this thread. I will try to restrain myself from making any further inflammatory posts that would tend to keep the thread going. ------------------------------------------ but then we received ------------------------------------------ From: jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 18:11:15 -0700 (PDT) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anonymous writes > What? Non sequitur! No where in Chomsky's quote do we find any remote > resemblance of a reference to mass media; I said context, not quote. [many lines clipped...] ------------------------------------------ Looks like you need to lock yourself up a bit tighter, James. -L. McCarthy "I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem" -Offspring Send me mail using "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about Underdog

1 0

archives
by iqg1550＠acf4.NYU.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

could someone please tell me where the CP list is archived -- if, in fact, it is -- as well as the dates covered by any such archive thank you very much ira

4 4

Re: Admiral Inman
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Inman was surprised by the looming introduction of VoicePGP, and said that >>that would be a big problem > >I like the sound of this. > I've always assumed that the excitement behind the Digital Telephony bill was to go after VoicePGP. My prediction is that the Internet alone is legal but the Internet plus VoicePGP can't be deployed without someone building in the wiretaps for the government. Since no one owns the Internet and no one can add the wiretap ability, then the Internet + VoicePGP will be verboten. Since they can't very well ban the Internet, they'll just ban using VoicePGP on public networks. But, you'll be free to use it in the privacy of your own home. That's my latest paranoid thought. -Peter

1 0

C.I.D.
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can we defeat caller I.D.? It used to be that if you wanted to have anonymous e-mail, you could sign on to a BBS. But I am scared by the new modems that are equipped to log caller I.D. The general public believes that if they want to remain anonymous, they can defeat caller ID by dialling *67 before making a call, that way making sure that their number is not revealed. Ha! This is true, but not the full truth ... because Big Brother still has the number: The calling number is sent between switches always, regardless of whether or not *67 (Caller ID Block) is dialed. It just sends along a privacy indicator if you dial *67, and then the final switch in the path will send a "P" instead of the calling number to the Caller ID box. (But it will still store the actual number - *69 will work whether or not the caller dialed *67). What the final switch along the path does with the calling number depends on how the switch is configured. If you are not paying for Caller ID service, the switch is configured so that it will not transmit the Caller ID data. Before this, if you wanted to make sure a system didn't trace you back, you could call through a few diverters, PABXs, etc. However, today with Caller ID, your call information will be routed from diverter to PABX to system instead of stopping at the first diverter. The effect call forwarding has on the various services is interesting... Say I have my home telephone forwarded to Lunatic Labs, and it has Caller ID. If you call me, the call will forward to Lunatic Labs, and its Caller ID box will show YOUR number, not mine (since your line is the actual one making the call). Does this get you thinking? Anybody knows of a way to *really* defeat caller I.D.? Or, absent that, a more appropriate mailing list than this for such questions? |[]|[]|[]|[]|[]| "The Happy Fool"© []|[]|[]|[]|[]|[ PS: I did not want to participate in the great logo debate a while back, but if you want my 2C's, I think a simple padlock would be a great symbol, especially for an icon to do unbreakable encryption: Click it and seal. Elaborate? Then just put it on a red wax-seal.

1 0

Re: Admiral Inman
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Wayner writes: > I've always assumed that the excitement behind the Digital Telephony > bill was to go after VoicePGP. Not really - Digital Telephony goes after the phone companies, not the end users, which makes it easier for the government to impose. Among other people it *is* going after are cellphone companies which are getting a lot of pressure to include encryption on their radio links (some people are pressuring them to use *real* encryption, the NSA has been pressuring them to use at most wimpy encryption, and some people have been pressuring them to put in _anything_, even rot-13, just so there's _some_ vague privacy protection out there.) It's also, of course, going after carriers who have the _gall_ to use more powerful telephone systems than the FBI can afford to crack :-) Now, VoicePGP may be the next step in banning things - after all, they could declare use of cryptography to be Probable Cause that you're conspiring about something, which would let them confiscate your computer equipment and make you sue to get it back. Bill

1 0

(Fwd) news spoke
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarding Design-L mail by: <carr0023(a)GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU> () on Nov 23 ------------------- This message revealed itself yesterday on my shell account. This could be some arbitrary law going down in the present, even worse than the McCarthy era witchunt. So much silence, even for academic concerns, and system administrators decide whom to prosecute for relevance. _________________________________________________________________ ___________ UNIX(r) System V Release 4.0 (gold.tc.umn.edu) This system is for the use of authorized account holders only. Individuals using this computer system without authority, or in excess of their authority, are subject to having all of their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system, or in the course of routine system maintenance, the activities of authorized account holders may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, system personnel may provide the evidence gathered to law enforcement officials.

2 1